Like a Bad Horror Movie

Paul Krugman writes in yesterday's New York Times about zombie Reaganism. That is, Reaganism that even in the face of failure, just won't give up. It's a good column. And it helps to explain why I think the best recent president we've had is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I had (and still have) high hopes for Obama, but as yet, nothing's doing. I'm afraid if the Democrats don't get their butts in gear, the party will not stand in the next election. All parties are fragmented to one degree or another, but the Republicans always toe the party line. Democrats are wasting great opportunities to further progressivism, and Obama seems unable to get them to unify behind good policy. I don't want to think about what will happen if Republicans gain seats during the mid-term elections in 2010 - it would be a huge setback for cities, rail, healthcare, and gay rights.

Yonah Freemark over at the Transport Politic links Louisana's Bobby Jindal to this zombie phenomenon in regards to his flip-flopping over high-speed rail between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

Brown Shirts and Red Caps

Since not all of you follow conservative blogs, you might have missed it when a popular US Congressman called Amtrak a fascist organization. In a column earlier this week in the American Daily Review, former presidential candidate and Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul, rails against - well against the government really - but in this case, he's particularly upset by "bailouts."

He is most angered by the recent federal bailout of (and subsequent controlling interest in) General Motors. To make his case, he falls back on the most favorite of conservative pastimes, attacking Amtrak. Of course comparing it to fascism is a new twist, but the general meat of his argument is pretty consistent with what conservatives have been saying about government-supported passenger rail since the Nixon Administration.

Mr. Paul asserts that the promise that the government takeover of GM is temporary is false. As proof he cites the government "purchase" of Amtrak. Mr. Paul claims that the government promised to be out of the passenger rail business within 3 years, but that now, 40 years later, with billions invested, Amtrak is still a fiscal loser. Mr. Paul also claims that the government is so inept at running things that despite making Amtrak a monopoly, it's still unprofitable. He worries that same things will be the case with GM.

He is right about one thing: Amtrak is a fiscal loser. Mr. Paul's other claims are inaccurate. No promises were ever made about a sunset on Amtrak. The Nixon Administration had made secret assertions that Amtrak would wither and die before the rollingstock could be repainted, but despite Nixon's hopes that one last hurrah would be sufficient to let passenger service on America's railroads end, the American public and Congress had different ideas. Even today, support for Amtrak keeps conservative politicos at bay.

More importantly, Amtrak is not a monopoly. Besides having to compete with cars and planes, which are also subsidized by the American taxpayer, Amtrak is not a mandated monopoly. Other rail modes are available, including commuter trains, many of which duplicate Amtrak service for a cheaper rate. And nothing precludes corporations from starting other rail services. In fact, the United States government is currently seeking investors to implement high speed rail in the Northeast Corridor and around the country.

Another point of contention I have with Mr. Paul's argument is that he cites the government purchase of Amtrak to save passenger rail from bankruptcy. But the American taxpayer didn't buy Amtrak, they created it. They did so to save not only passenger rail, but freight rail, too. In the face of increasing federal investment in Airports and Interstate Highways, passenger rail ridership had fallen to all-time lows on the private carriers' beloved trains. Because the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated intercity trains, and because they mandated that service be maintained on often unprofitable routes and required a long, tedious process before any routes could be discontinued, passenger service threatened to bring down the entire industry, already on the brink of destruction.

Amtrak was created as a way to save the railroads. In return for preferred stock in the company, private railroads could pay Amtrak to assume designated routes through monetary means or through equipment. Initially, at least, Amtrak's fleet was made up of the remnants of many formerly separate fleets. The routes to be saved had been designated by the US DOT as a part of a National Network. Over time, these routes have also dwindled, although some, like the Pioneer, may soon return.

Like other modes, Amtrak is not profitable - at least not directly. The Interstates don't make money either, but they do generate other benefits. So does Amtrak. The Northeast Corridor has now captured half of the travel share of trips between Washington and New York. Amtrak also provides access to many communities far too small for an airport of their own. Without Amtrak's network of trains, we'd have a less robust transportation network, as September 11 proved, when airports and sold-out rental cars left trains as one of the only options for many.

Now, as far as I can tell, operating a national rail system does not make a nation fascist. But Mr. Paul says that "comingling public control of private business" is the definition of fascism. While I'm sure Congressman Paul is much more experienced than I with public-private corporate totalitarianism, I decided not just to take his word for it. So I looked up "fascism" in a dictionary.

Fascism is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Now, I'm not an expert in government systems, so I'll defer to the person who is a member of one and assume that Mr. Paul's assertions are accurate. In that regard, I thought I'd just make a brief list of other countries which we can assume are fascist because they have nationalized passenger rail networks. (List is not exhaustive)

• Austria
• Belgium
• Canada
  
• Chile
• Denmark
  
• Finland
  
• France
• Greece
  
• India
• Israel
• Italy
  
• Luxembourg
  
• The Netherlands
  
• New Zealand
  
• Norway
• Peru
  
• Portugal
• South Korea
  
• Spain
  
• Sweden
  
• Switzerland
  
• The United States

Quote of the Day: Share the Good News!

I just saw this on Transportation for America, and I wanted to share it!

Here's today's Quote of the Day:

No. Strike that. Let's make it Quote of the Week.

It’s imagining new transportation systems. I’d like to see high speed rail where it can be constructed. I would like for us to invest in mass transit because potentially that’s energy efficient. And I think people are a lot more open now to thinking regionally…

The days where we’re just building sprawl forever, those days are over. I think that Republicans, Democrats, everybody… recognizes that’s not a smart way to design communities. So we should be using this money to help spur this sort of innovative thinking when it comes to transportation.

That will make a big difference.

The quotee?
That would be President Barack Obama.

This quote came from a Town Hall forum in Fort Meyers, Florida this morning. See the President say it yourself around the 55 minute mark in this C-Span video.

LaHood Tapped as DOT Head

It's official. We finally have a nominee for Secretary of Transportation. Unfortunately, the potential future leader of the nation's transportation program is a relative unknown in transportation circles. 

The nominee is Ray LaHood, a congressman from rural Southern Illinois. He has represented Illinois' 18th District since 1995 in the United States House of Representatives. Representative LaHood is a moderate Republican whose record on transportation seems to be neutral, although certainly more liberal than most Republicans. Unlike Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer, whose sponsorship of transportation bills has dramatically improved the situation for transit, or James Oberstar, Congressman from Minnesota, whose support for bikes and transit is well known, Mr. LaHood has no transportation bills to his name. Other than the occasional break from the party to vote in support of Amtrak, LaHood hasn't focused on transportation. 

And I'm afraid Mr. LaHood's nomination does not bode well for America's transportation policy. By selecting someone with little transportation experience, Mr. Obama is indicating that he does not place much emphasis on the importance of transportation on his policy agenda. 

While I don't necessarily think that Mr. LaHood will have a negative impact on transportation policy, I don't think that he's the person who is going to bring change to Washington. I think it most likely that he will keep the status quo, at best--and right now, that is one of the last things we need in transport policy. 

As I've pointed out before, now is a pivotal moment for transportation in America. Among other things, we're up for reauthorization of the transportation bill in 2009. Additionally, transit ridership is higher than it's been for decades while VMT is dropping. The last thing we need right now is business as usual. I sincerely hope that Mr. LaHood will not bring that kind of leadership to DOT. 

Honestly, I am disappointed in Mr. Obama. He seems to be serious about energy independence and fighting climate change, but does not seem to see the transportation component of either of those goals as important. And while his platform called for transit-oriented planning, his policies seem to be headed toward the kind of road building of the sort catalyzed 5 decades of sprawl.

For now, I'm waiting to learn more about Ray LaHood. I truly hope that he will bring change to Washington, but I don't have too much hope anymore. With all Mr. Obama's talk of infrastructure spending, I'd hoped he was serious about rebuilding America. It seems I was mistaken.

Please make sure to see my other posts on the topic:

Building America, Building a Cabinet

Disappointment

Dead Week/Disappointment

It's a busy time of the year for everyone, I suppose, and so the past few days have been light on blogging and blog reading for me. Next week is the last week of the semester at Maryland, meaning that my final classes are this week. When I was at Georgia Tech, we called the week prior to finals "Dead Week." It certainly will be dead for Track Twenty-Nine, although I'll try and get back to blogging more next week as my class obligations end.

But despite my lack of time this week, I want to express some frustration. I'm not the only one around to be doing so, either.

You see, on November 4, I stood in line in the cold and voted for change. While I waited with my neighbors and fellow disenfranchised citizens (in DC), I thought back to the first time I voted for Barack Obama, on a snowy day in March, during the Potomac Primary. It was cold then, too. But I felt that I was casting a ballot which would help to thaw America from the icy clutch of the Republicans. For 8 long years, they stood with the reigns of power, and created public policy in the transportation, energy, and urban policy areas which made me want to vomit.

So on November 4, I was out in the streets cheering when CNN called the election for Obama. It was raining, but we didn't care here in DC. Getting wet that cold November evening didn't matter. We had won! After 8 years of strife, victory was at hand. Change was in the air. In a matter of months, a new era would start in America--an era of growing environmental consciousness, of reinvestment in our cities, of policies for the people--instead of for corporate executives.

Now, I'm not so sure that I got what I voted for. To be certain, Mr. Obama has not yet taken office, and much is still unknown about his policies, but I am worried.

In a speech on Saturday, the President-Elect called for investment. But I did not hear a call for anything remotely like the Second System. Instead I heard a call that hearkens back to the Eisenhower Administration.

"We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in
our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in
the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and
we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to
invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

Granted, Obama did not actually call for investment in the federal highway system. But he did use it as an example. Where are his calls for high speed rail? Where are his examples of the UMTA transit program of the 1970s that gave us BART, Metro, and MARTA? The program that gave us LRT in San Diego, in Pittsburgh, in San Francisco?

In a world where highway building has been the status-quo for over 5 decades, the lack of mention of transit does not bode well. For the last 7 years, Mr. Bush has called for Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil in each of his States of the Union. Not once did he ask Americans to try transit--nor did he do much to increase the supply of transit. Do we face another 4 years of the same?

Mr. Obama says that if communities don't invest in roads and bridges, they'll lose federal dollars. I fear that if they don't invest in transit, they'll lose their communities. But where are Mr. Obama's pledges of money to fund transit projects that are in design?

According to today's Washington Post, Maryland and Virginia have new hopes for road projects cancelled by the recent downturn. Excuse me? What about the major cuts to MARC service proposed by MTA? Shouldn't we be hoping for a stimulus that would at least keep transit service at today's levels, especially in the face of vast increases in ridership?

Just yesterday, the Post ran a story about transit ridership across the nation--it's up, way up. In heavy rail, LA leads the pack with a 14.1% increase over last year. Baltimore's light rail leads with an increase of 19.6%. The Railrunner in Albuquerque leads with a huge increase of 35.8%. For the Post's editorial board, the evidence is clear and convincing. They're calling for investment in transit. The Post rightly points out, that any fast-acting stimulus penalizes transit because of the hoops we've created for those projects to jump through. And while Obama might be the likeliest candidate to change that situation, he has so far shown no inclination to fund a transit stimulus.

Even though VMT is dropping and transit ridership is increasing, Mr. Obama wants to give states money to widen highways, like I-66 and I-95, but doesn't see fit to give a few federal dollars to stop the elmination of already-crowded commuter trains running alongide these corridors.

Indeed, with all this talk of infrastructure spending to rival the New Deal, why haven't we heard about his pick for Secretary of Transportation? If we're really going to invest in our transportation infrastructure like Eisenhower did, why isn't Mary Peters' replacement already drawing up plans?

I'm still holding out hope for a Transportation Secretary like Jim Oberstar or Earl Blumenauer, but with Obama's talk of highway spending, I'm afraid we'll get someone more like Robert Moses.

I haven't yet given up hope for change. But I also haven't heard much since November 4 to suggest that change is really coming, at least to transportation policy. And in this time of high ridership and demand for government infrastructure investment, that would be a shame. This is the chance of a generation to change the way our cities are structured--we cannot afford to squander that opportunity just to build more highways. Not if we have any hope for redesigning cities to survive into the 21st century--a century guaranteed not to be the century of cheap oil.

GO VOTE!

The day has finally come at long last.

Once every four years, Americans have the opportunity to go to the polls and elect the leader of the free world. This tradition is one of our greatest, and everyone who is eligible should participate.

And whether you would have elected America's first African-American President or the first female Vice-President, it is your right and solemn duty as an American to go and pull the lever, punch the card, or touch the screen to elect your candidate.

So today, you'll find me standing in line up on Upshur Street where I'll be voting on a host of issues. And whether it be snowing (as it was for me during the primaries) or whether I must stand in line for hours, I'll do what it takes to cast my ballot. You should too.

I'm sure this is not the first time that anyone has called an election "the most important in a generation," but I can't remember one that surpasses this one in my (relatively short) lifetime. From climate change to transportation reauthorization; from the war in Iraq to the war on poverty; from healthcare to the energy crisis; from new urbanism to the economic meltdown, America is on the brink of change. Both candidates have promised it and Americans are demanding it.

Hopefully in less than 24 hours, we'll know which direction policy is to take for the next four years.

Track Twenty-Nine is not going to take the step of endorsing any candidate. If you haven't yet made up your mind, I've posted a review of some of the issues important to this blog to help you decide, but it's not my place to tell you how to vote.

But let's not forget, on this most sacred of days for our republic, that there are still some who are not yet free to govern for themselves. Unfortunately, as one of the almost 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia, I too find myself without representation in Congress.

The work of the Founding Fathers is not yet done, and will not be until all citizens of this fair land are given equal representation under the Constitution.

But that's no excuse not to...
...GO VOTE!

Candidates and Transportation

As you're all aware, election day is rapidly approaching. Some Americans have already gone to the polls to vote, and this election sure is shaping up to be an exciting one. I talked about the candidates views on energy recently, and now it's time to address Track Twenty-Nine's issue number 1: Transportation.

In regards to transportation, the candidates are about as far apart as two people can be. Well, actually, I'll try and be more accurate: they're about as far apart as two politicians can be. My views are somewhat further from Senator McCain's than are Senator Obama's.

The largest difference between the candidates is at the fundamental level. Both agree that Americans need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but the similarities end there. Senator McCain may want to lower the amount of oil that we import, but he does not see reducing dependence on the automobile as a solution. In fact, many of Mr. McCain's policy positions seek to increase America's automobile addiction. Instead of sending our country into detox, he's just exchanging our foreign-cut with domestically extracted oil.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, wants to give Americans alternatives to driving. He also wants to reshape federal policy so that our communities can be made more walkable, livable, and transit-friendly. He recognizes the dire state of our nation's infrastructure and seeks to create funding sources, including leveraging private dollars, to keep our bridges from falling down and to keep our trains on track.

Senator Obama's pick for Vice President also earns him a gold star in my book for good transportation decision making. Senator Joe Biden has been commuting to Washington from his home in Delaware by Amtrak since he took office in 1973. He has long been an outspoken supporter of rail in this country, something that he will likely continue to advocate for as Vice President.

Senator McCain picked the governor of Alaska as his running mate, and that does not bode well for his credentials, at least not in the transportation sector. After clamoring for an earmark to build a bridge to Gravina Island, Governor Palin cancelled the bridge when the political tide turned against it. She still built the road to it anyway, and without the bridge, it's even more of a waste. At least with the bridge, people would have used the road.

Here's a brief breakdown of the candidates' positions:
Lists are not exhaustive.

Senator Barack Obama's Transportation Platform:

• A top priority of the campaign is to strengthen our existing infrastructure.
• Will create 1 million jobs through transportation investment.
• Would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to enhance and supplement federal transportation funding.
• Leverage private investments through the infrastructure bank.
• Supports federal funding for Amtrak.
• Supports the development of high-speed passenger and freight rail systems.
• Will double JARC funding to increase access to jobs for inner-city residents.
  
• Will increase funding for public transportation.
  
• Wants to raise transit/ridesharing benefits in tax code to the level of driver benefits.
  
• Will strengthen the role of MPOs.
  
• Supports requiring states to plan for energy conservation in transportation planning.
  
• Supports a carbon cap/trade program.
  
• Would offer incentives to transition to/develop alternative fuels.
• Calls for a doubling of fuel efficiency standards within 18 years.
  

Senator John McCain:
(Website does not specifically list transportation as an issue)

• Has called for a suspension of the federal gas tax.
• Supports tax credits and other incentives to encourage alternative fuel development.
  
• Believes that Amtrak is a symbol of government waste.
  
• Would encourage telecommuting.
  
• Thinks the solution to America's energy problem is to "drill, baby, drill."
  

While this list cannot be exhaustive, I did my best to compile information. Senator McCain's campaign website does not put much emphasis on transportation. A search of the site for the term "transit" returned hits where he refers to oil's transit routes (as in something that terrorists or dictators could disrupt) and border transit points.

The Brookings Institution has created a nice table comparing the candidates' opinions on transportation.

This election comes at a pivotal time for America. Oil Prices are at record highs. Ridership on transit and Amtrak is higher than it has been in decades. In the south, people can't even get gasoline. Scientists tell us that without a major shift in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will only accelerate. We cannot afford to ignore these issues, yet one candidate out there seems to find them not worth mentioning.

November 4 is a very important day for America. Make sure you remember to go vote.

A Waste of Energy

It's still really too early to start reviewing the platforms of our presidential candidates, in my opinion. However, last week had both candidates talking about energy and I think the discussion is worth bringing up here.

I believe that the single most important issue facing this country right now is Energy Policy. While I mention energy quite often in this forum, I am, as you know, primarily focused on transportation and urban growth issues. These, while worthy of their own discussions, are really a subset of energy policy and they merit discussion by the candidates.

At this point in the election cycle, the candidates are still firming up their positions, and certain aspects of their policy goals may change (as happened last week), I will probably look back over energy later in the campaign along with other policy areas.

Right now I am very disappointed. I understand that people running for public office have to first be elected before they can influence policy, and that sometimes they have to be soft on certain issues in order to win.

At the same time, I feel that Americans need some straight talk from our public officials and candidates. Many here have been living the American (pipe) Dream made possible by cheap oil and bad policies in the post-war era. They regard the recent energy shocks as light turbulence. It's time for the captain to interrupt the in-flight movie, however. We haven't gotten to the point where we deploy the oxygen masks yet and if we act soon, we might not have to; however, if we continue to pretend that it's business as usual, we will soon find ourselves in an even worse predicament.

That's why I was proud of Senator Barack Obama for calling out Senators Clinton and McCain on their suspend-the-gas-tax proposal. Not only would suspending the gas tax not lower gas prices, but it would also increase consumption and hasten the date of crisis, but the suspension would also forfeit $1 billion in revenue. Incidentally, just two weeks ago, the US Department of Transportation announced that the highway trust fund is going to run out in October due to lessened gas tax revenue from the drop in demand. I'm certainly glad that we didn't forgo that revenue; we would have run out even sooner.

But the Junior Senator from Illinois is beginning to seem less prescient. The New York Times reported last Tuesday that Obama has proposed releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and has softened in his opposition to offshore drilling.

The quandary for progressive politicians like Senator Obama was pointed out by the Washington Post's cartoonist, Tom Toles, on July 30th. In his cartoon, two Uncle Sams are sitting on a see-saw. One is trying to reduce global warming, the other is trying to reduce gas prices. For some strange reason, the see-saw isn't moving in either direction.

Senator Obama is under extreme pressure to reduce gas prices, and their height is certainly a major problem for most Americans, but as we are seeing, the market is causing them to drop as we speak. As of August 10, CNN was reporting that gas was down for the 24th day running. CNN also points out that the drop in oil prices is a mixed blessing, blaming the drop in prices on reduced demand due to the recession. According to the article, the drop in May was the third largest drop in prices since 1942.

But despite that pressure, I had hoped that Mr. Obama would tell Americans what they needed to hear rather than what they wanted to hear. Still, it's not all bad. Mr. Obama has many progressive elements in his energy policy, and while I disagree with a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, his policy is still much better than maintaining the status quo as proposed by Senator McCain.

The esteemed Senator from Arizona wants to increase off-shore drilling of oil--a move which wouldn't have an impact before 2030, and whose benefits would not significantly reduce the price or be long-lasting, according to a report by the US Energy Information Administration.

The only way America will be able to permanently solve its energy problem is by reducing its demand for fossil fuels. The only way we will get Americans to reduce their usage (demand) is to use market forces, which means that in the long run, high gas prices are better. Even Time Magazine has pointed out that high gas isn't all bad.

So, to compare the candidates:

Senator Obama's Energy Policy
(list is not exhaustive)
Reduce Demand for Oil:

1. $150 billion over 10 years to develop clean energy sources.
2. Put 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015.
3. Increase amount of energy from renewables.
4. Greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system.
5. Increase fuel economy standards.
   
6. Create tax credit for purchasing "advanced" vehicles.
7. Increase energy efficiency.
8. Weatherize 1 million homes annually.
9. Develop clean coal technology.
10. Support Amtrak funding.
11. Develop high-speed freight and passenger rail.
12. Invest in public transportation.
13. Greater incentives for transit usage.
14. Strengthen metropolitan planning.
15. Ensure that transportation planning process considers Smart Growth.
16. Require energy conservation be considered as a part of transportation planning.

Increase Demand for Oil:

1. Release oil from SPR.
2. Promote responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.
3. Cut down on traffic congestion.

Senator McCain's Energy Policy
(list is not exhaustive)
Reduce Demand for Oil:

1. Tax break for buying clean cars.
2. Prize for Commercially viable battery.
   
3. Encourage automakers to manufacture more flex-fuel vehicles.
4. Expand alcohol-based fuels.
5. Enforce existing CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards.
6. Advance clean coal technologies.
7. Build more nuclear power plants.
8. Tax credits for renewable energy production.
9. Create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.
   

Increase Demand for Oil:

1. Open up areas for off-shore drilling.
2. Support for gas-tax holiday.
   
3. History of animosity toward transit.
4. History of animosity toward Amtrak.

What do you think of the candidates on energy?

Addendum, 11 August, 9:45 AM:
Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed
for the New York Times which was published Saturday. I just discovered it this
morning. It's certainly a more concise way of saying what I've said over several
posts here. It's well worth a read.

Legislation without Representation is Tyranny

I hate to beat a dead horse, or as Indiana Congressman Mark Souder says, "raise the tired old canard of home rule," but, that does not change the fact that after more than two centuries of being surrounded by Freedom, DC citizens still lack the right to vote in Congress. We still lack the ability to make our own laws, to choose our own path, to govern ourselves.

Representative Souder has had enough. "Shutup," he says. It's for your own good.

In today's Post, Represenative Souder, a Republican representing the 3rd District of Indiana, published a letter to the editor.

In his letter, he seems to be upset that a democratically elected body (the Washington City Council) is working to fix its gun regulations in the wake of District of Columbia vs. Heller. He claims to be standing up for the rights of Citizens of the District by calling for the US Congress (which DC Citizens have no part in electing) to override the elected DC government by writing its own legislation.

Mr. Souder, we live in a republic. And while the citizens of our nation's capital don't have full voting rights, we have every right to determine our own future. Just like the citizens of Indiana. So we can choose to re-elect the city council if we agree with them on the handgun issue, or we can elect councilmembers who will overturn it. We can also wait to see what the courts actually say. The one thing we can't do, however, is let you tread on us.

In 1963, 10 years before the city of Washington would receive a locally elected mayor and council, President John F. Kennedy travelled to an island of democracy in Eastern Europe. There, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, standing in the shadow of the Wall, he said that the proudest boast in a world of freedom is "Ich bin ein Berliner." This phrase, said Kennedy, is the boast of "all free men, wherever they may live."

Oh, how I long to say that phrase.

Berlin was an island of freedom in a sea of totalitarianism. Washington is surrounded by the lapping waves of freedom, and while they haven't built a wall to keep us in, they haven't given us the vote either.

Representative Souder wrote his letter in response to a Washington Post editorial, published last Friday, criticising his ploy to subvert the rights of Washingtonians. The well-written editorial points out that Mr. Souder would likely not stand for this sort of interference in his own district, but then this never has been about democracy. What it is about is getting the NRA's endorsement.

So while gun violence claims the lives of too many people each week in DC, Representative Souder courts votes in Indiana. While citizens of the District cry out for representation, Mr. Souder looks for ways to subvert the little power they have.

Representative, your methods are despicable. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the ideals for which it stands. Your parlimentary games sink to below the level of the Stamp Act and the other Intolerable Acts. At least when Britain passed the Quartering Act they weren't doing so against their own words of honor. Thinking that you know what's best for the People is the same fallacy that King George III fell victim to.

Playing politics with the voting rights of almost 600,000 Americans is unacceptable.

This proposed legislation, along with other Congressional overrides of the local government of DC smacks of the tyranny iherent in the reviled Massachusetts Government Act. This government, one made of the People, by the People, and for the People, is supposed to stand for something. It is supposed to be a shining city on a hill, a beacon of hope in a world without freedom. But here, in the shadow of the Capitol's Dome, that light is dimmed. And legislation like Mr. Souder's proposal make it still darker here.

I agree with one thing in Mr. Souder's letter, though. "The time is now for Congress to step in to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans."

Where is our right to vote, Mr. Souder? When will you stand up for that right?

How many years can a mountain exist
before it's washed to the sea?
How many years must some people exist
before they're allowed to be free?
And how many time can a man turn his head
and pretend that he just doesn't see the answer?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind.

How many times can a man look up
before he sees the sky?
How many ears must one person have
before he can hear people cry?
And how many deaths will it take
'til he knows that too many people have died?
The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind.

(from "Blowin' in the Wind" by Bob Dylan)

Call Me Confused (But Not Surprised)

I try to keep up to date on the transportation issues facing the United States and pass them on. Due to my background in transportation planning and public policy, I usually have a pretty good handle on the goings on in these circles.

Sometimes, though, I come across an annoucement that puzzles me.

The Bush Administration, in my opinion, has not been a friend of transit, so I'm usually suspicious when the Department of Transportation under Secretary Peters claims to be.

Take for instance, this recent post on the DOT's blog, Welcome to the Fast Lane. The Secretary is proposing a new plan for transportation. To show how progressive this legislation is, Secretary Peters is making the annoucement from Atlanta, "a city that knows what it's like to be rebuilt and reborn." Atlanta burned in 1864. Wouldn't Chicago be more appropriate (Fire, 1871) or perhaps San Francsico (Earthquake, Fire, 1906)?

Trust me, Secretary Peters. As someone who grew up outside Atlanta, I can tell you that Southerners don't need to be reminded of Sherman's Atlanta Campaign, especially by someone from the Federal Government. After all, where do you think Sherman got his paychecks?

Anyway, this announcement claims that the new plan will be good for transit. According to the website, the plan will:

• Eliminate arbitrary federal restrictions on effective transit investments.
• Create a mode neutral program called Metropolitan Mobility.
• Encourage congestion pricing (to shift drivers to transit).
• Create a Metropolitan Innovation Fund that will award funds to cities that combine congestion pricing and transit investment.
• Make highways go through the same cost-benefit analyses as transit.
• Streamline federal processes.
• Expand local transit funding alternatives.

Just to review a couple of these with skepticism, I would point out that while the plan criticises transit projects for taking too long to build, it encourages using that same process for both highways and transit. Wouldn't it be better just to get rid of it? Besides, Secretary Peters and the Bush Administration have been delaying the Dulles Metro extension with every fiber of their beings--a transit project in the median of a toll highway, being funded with toll revenues from said highway, in a region building HOT lanes on the Beltway and I-95/395.

Still, let's assume that the plan really does intend to be supportive of transit. If that's the case, then what's up with this article, published in the New York Times today?

That's right straphangers, Mr. Bush wants to borrow from the Transit Account to pay for the Highway Account, which is predicted to run out of money this year.

Excuse me? On the same day as the DOT announces new transit friendly policies, the administration tries to shift transit funds into building roads. And this comes the day after the Federal Highway Administration announced that Vehicle Miles Traveled dropped for the seventh month in a row (May), which will likely lead to the first annual drop in VMT since 1980.

Do we really need to be building all of these roads, at the expense of transit?

Driving = going down.
Transit Use = going up.

So the obvious choice is to take money from transit to build roads. Brilliant.

Really, Mr. Bush needs to go back to reading books to school children in Florida and leave the policymaking to someone who knows what's going on.

Comments?

"We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident..."*

*Some restrictions apply, not valid in all areas, must be 18 or older to apply.

I've written about this subject at length before, but I think it appropriate to revisit this injustice once again, especially on the anniversary of a Declaration not only of American independence, but of the rights inherent in all human beings. These principles, according to the founding fathers, transcended all time and culture and no outside entity had the right or ability to remove them.

"Give me liberty, or give me death," therefore was a statement prescient for its time. Spoken before Jefferson put quill to parchment, the statement espoused the idea that without the fundamental rights due mankind, life was not worth living.

When Patrick Henry said those words in March of 1775, it is said, he convinced Virginia to commit troops to fight in the revolution against the British. Now, over two centuries later, his words ring hollow in parts of this great nation. I doubt that he would have supported taxation without representation under the new Continental government any more than he did under the Redcoats. Yet that was precisely what was destined to happen.

From 1801 until 1846, citizens of Mr. Henry's own state, Virginia, who had been living in and around Alexandria were stripped of their right to vote. Their neighbors across the Potomac in Georgetown (formerly part of Maryland) and the new captial city never got their votes back.

While it is true that residents of the District of Columbia have been able to vote for President since the election of 1964, they still have no voting representatives or senators. The nearly 600,000 residents of Washington cannot write their senator, cannot visit their representative, cannot be given the full rights guarunteed under the United States Constitution, even though they many are natural born citizens.

And because of DC's unique administrative design, it is even more essential that Washingtonians be able to vote for congressional representation than it is for Americans living in one of the 50 states. You see, in the District of Columbia, the United States Congress has ultimate authority. They even have the power to eliminate DC's elected city council and mayor--without asking the citizens of DC if it's ok to do so. So while Ohioans and Californians certainly have a stake in the federal government, they aren't in danger of having their state legislatures revoked.

The citizens of DC live under that threat constantly. And while it is doubtful that Congress would abuse that power, it isn't unthinkable, and it has been exercised before. Currently, citizens of the District have only been able to govern themselves since 1975. It had been 104 years since the last time citizens could elect their local officials popularly, when congress removed that right in 1871.

For more information on DC Home Rule, see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_home_rule.

And even if Congress rarely dissolves the DC government, it frequently overrules it. Because Congress has complete jurisdiction over DC, everything from the budget to the most minor of legislation.

Dr. Zachary Schrag details one example of DC being overrulled by Congress in his book (pg. 258), Great Society Subway (which I highly recommend). In this case, one of Georgia's representatives, Bob Barr, threatened to cancel the District's appropriation to Metro because Arlington County refused to pay to change the name of National Airport Station to "Ronald Reagan National Airport Station*." Why would this man, currently the Libertarian candidate for President, find it necessary to take such a harsh stance on local control?

Even back in Georgia, he wouldn't have had the power to force the Atlanta City Council to rename their airport, but in a state far away, in a region of people who did not vote for him, he has the power to circumvent democracy. No one in our government should have that power.

*To explain the situation a little, in 1998, Congress voted to rename the airport after former President Reagan. Based on a 1987 policy, WMATA requires jurisdictions requesting a station name change to pay the $400,000 cost. In this case Arlington County declined--after all quite a few employees of the federal government live there, and Reagan was kind of mean to them. As a result, Barr encouraged Congress to withhold DC's entire budget contribution to WMATA. As a result, WMATA folded and paid the full cost themselves, to the expense of all Metro riders.

There is no excuse for the lack of representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia. It is clear from the Framers' actions, that they were against any form of tyrannical government, including in the one they were forming.

America remains the only western democracy whose capital citizens do not have the right to vote. Mr. Bush seems so intent on "exporting democracy" to Iraq that he can't see the lack of it in the city he lives in.

I sincerely hope that this is the last Independence Day when Washingtonians are made to tolerate their lack of full suffrage.

http://www.dcvote.org/

My Senator Takes the Morning Train

Ok, so I don't know if my Senator takes the morning train, but you can say that if you're from Delaware. In a speech earlier this week, Senator Thomas Carper (D, Delaware), the junior senator from Delaware told his colleagues that he takes the train home, almost every night.

And why shouldn't he? The end of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is only 2500 feet from the Senate Chamber. The Senator needs to walk less than a half mile up (ironically) Delaware Avenue to Burnham's masterpiece, Union Station.

So yesterday, while we bloggers were lamenting the lack of leadership on this issue, Mr. Carper was on the floor of the Senate saying this (excerpt):

I ride the train back and forth most days. I live in Delaware, and I go back and forth. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows, I go back and forth almost every night to Delaware. A strange thing is going on with respect to passenger rail ridership in this country.

I used to serve on the Amtrak board when I was Governor of Delaware, and every year we would see ridership go up by a couple of percentage points. We would struggle, try to raise money out of the fare box to pay for the system and the expansion of the system. Well, the first quarter of this fiscal year, ridership at Amtrak is up 15 percent. Revenues are up by 15 percent. People are starting to realize that maybe it makes sense to get out of our cars, trucks, and vans and take the train or take transit. Transit ridership is up again this fiscal year more dramatically than it has been in some time.

Americans are beginning to literally buy homes in places that are closer to opportunities for transit--for rail, for bus, for subways, for the metro systems. As we have seen the drop in home prices across the country--in some cases, very dramatic--among the surprises, at least for me, is to see housing prices stable and in some cases actually going up in places where people can buy a home and live and get to work or wherever they need to go to shop without driving to get there.

I don't know how gullible we think the American voters are to suggest to them that we are going to have this holiday on gas taxes, Federal gas taxes, for 3 months or for 6 months, maybe to get us through the next election, and then when the elections are over we will go ahead and reinstate the gasoline tax to what it has been even though in doing that we might be depleting further the money available for transportation improvements. I don't know how foolish we think the American voters are. They are a lot smarter than that. They are a lot smarter, maybe, than we give them credit for being.

I think in this country people are crying out for leadership. They are calling out for Presidential leadership, whether it is from our side of the aisle or the Republican side. People want leaders who are willing to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune, and I would suggest that the wrong tune is to suspend the Federal gasoline tax and at the same time not replace the dollars that would otherwise go into the transportation trust fund to fix our dilapidated, our decaying transportation system. Voters in this country deserve better leadership from us. I am determined, I am committed to making sure we provide and pay for that.

Before I close, there are a lot of good ideas for things we ought to do. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, that we ought to provide more R&D investment for a new generation of lithium batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles. I say, tongue in cheek, we ought to use the Government purchasing power to commercialize advanced technology vehicles. We are doing that. I said with tongue in cheek we ought to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy highly efficient hybrid vehicles and very low diesel-powered vehicles that are efficient. We are doing that.

There other things we need to do too. We need to invest in rail service. We can send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. I will say that again. We could send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. But we as a government choose not to invest in freight rail and, frankly, to invest very modestly in passenger rail. It is a highly energy-efficient way to move people and goods.

(Emphasis mine)

And just to prove that politicians can do more than pander on energy policy, he closed by saying:

I will have a chance to come back later in the week and talk about this some more. Sometimes we underestimate the wisdom of the voters. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said: If you tell the American people the truth, they won't make a mistake. I will do my dead level best to make sure, during the course of the debate on this notion of waiving the gasoline tax or having a holiday on the gasoline tax until after the election, I am going to make sure, I hope with a number of my colleagues, the American people understand the truth and the full picture and that they will make the right decision. Hopefully, we will too.

(Emphasis mine)

This is the kind of leadership we should get from our elected officials. I wish I could call Mr. Carper my Senator.

Thanks to JW for the heads up on this speech.

Doors Opening, Candidates Please Step On

Earlier this week, I reported that Mr. McCain was calling for a suspension of the gas tax this summer. I also remarked on Senator Clinton's potential support for that policy. She has now followed through, and has also made calls for the suspension of the gas tax.

Many are saying that this will cost America $1 billion that would otherwise go to fix our decaying transportation system. It is likely that gas prices will not be significantly reduced, and this tax break will, in all likelihood, end up benefiting the oil companies.



I am glad to hear that at least one of the candidates is refusing to pander to voters on this most-important issue. Senator Barack Obama, Democratic front-runner, is calling a spade a spade. While I don't necessarily agree that pandering is the natural state of Washington, I can certainly understand where he's coming from, especially with regard to the blatant disregard for good policy that is coming from the Clinton and McCain camps.

Still, Mr. Obama's message leaves a little to be desired. He recently reiterated his support for Amtrak and for building a better high-speed rail network in this country, but he has not yet asked Americans to change modes, nor has he promised to significantly change the way we build transit in America.

In all of President Bush's States of the Union, he called for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not once did he ask Americans to try the bus. Not once did he promise a spending package that would start a wave of new transit construction across the nation. Instead, he called for new fuels (to be delivered sometime in the future) and a switch to biofuels (also to be delivered sometime in the future).

Asking Americans to switch to transit would produce an immediate reduction in oil usage, especially if it was coupled with subsidies to reduce fares and the construction of new lines.

I encourage Senator Obama to continue his fight to reduce America's dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise). I also encourage him to think strongly about a real transit policy. No developed country in the world has so many big cities and so few subways.

With oil supplies being used at an ever-increasing rate, now is the time to change our transportation policy. The next president will preside over the reauthorization (or lack thereof) of the next transportation spending bill. As yet, none of the candidates has satisfied me with a decent transportation/energy plank. It's time for that to change.

The question is, is it a Change Mr. Obama can believe in?

Silver Line Update

This morning's wonderful news about the Tysons Corner Metro extension is still good news, but we're not out of the woods yet.

FTA is committing $158.7 million to the project and is advancing it to the final design phase. The project is not yet a sure thing, but having jumped this hurdle, it is one step closer to reality.

Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters reminded Governor Kaine in a letter dated today that the two main issues facing the project are WMATA's ability to keep the system in a state of good repair and the ability of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (which is building the line) to keep the project on schedule and on budget.

At the same time, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, is blocking a bill which would greatly improve Metro's chances of keeping the system in good repair. The bill would provide $1.5 billion in federal assistance for capital costs over the next decade, and would be matched by Maryland, Virginia, and the District.

Mr. Coburn doesn't think even one penny should go to Metro. He says to use federal tax dollars to keep Metro running is to "steal opportunity from our children." I remind him that every gallon of gasoline that Washingtonians don't use because we have the Metro is one more gallon of gasoline available for the children of Oklahoma--and they don't have a subway to take.

The senator feels that Metro riders (who already pay one of the highest percentages of the cost of the system in the nation) should be the ones who shoulder the burden--all of the burden. Of course, we might not even need to have this discussion if the federal government hadn't made rail travel less feasible in this country through a systematic use of policies encouraging suburbanization. Perhaps Mr. Coburn would support drivers paying the full cost of the Interstate Highway System, but I doubt it.

Anyway, we owe a big thanks to the leadership of Virginia for moving this project forward.

Hoping for Divine Intervention

When the Founding Fathers laid out this now-great nation, I doubt they had any idea what it would have become. Still, they exercised amazing foresight in designing our system of governance. Benjamin Franklin tells us that "God helps those who help themselves." This advice flies in the face of recent calls for The Divine Presence to intervene in America's energy crisis by lowering gasoline prices.

While I can certainly understand the desire for assistance that comes with these tough times, it strikes me as inappropriate to have a pray-in at a gas station. How selfish can we be when it comes to our economy? While my religious views are complicated, at best, my upbringing was Christian, and I can not imagine something as offensive as asking God to intervene on my behalf at the expense of others.

What do these prayers sound like? Perhaps, if we were honest with ourselves, they would sound something like this:

Almighty God, for You all things are possible. Please intervene economically in Your divine and limitless wisdom to lower oil prices so that we, Your children, will be able to continue in our life of abundance and environmental degradation. It was you, oh Lord, who taught us that we were to have dominion over all the Earth. Oh Lord, please grant us the low gas prices which will enable us to continue to be bad stewards of your Creation. Lord, let it be Your will that we be able to get gas for less than $1.50. Without cheap foreign oil, we may be unable continue be wasteful of the resources entrusted to us, and use oil which might otherwise go to your less fortunate children. God, it was Your divine providence that enabled us to obtain the cheap oil requisite to trace our Manifest Destiny and spread forth vinyl siding and stucco over the woodlands of North America. For without Your bountiful gifts of cheap oil and cheaper land, we would have not been free to escape the forsaken urban environment. Oh Lord, through Your generous gifts, we the unworthy, were able to abandon our brethren minorities to a life of poverty and crime. And oh Lord, in Your infinite wisdom, You set us forth and provided us Hummers when our gas mileage was high, You widened our freeways when they were congested, and You set forth Divine zoning regulation to prohibit our relapse into an efficient urban society. We beseech You, oh God, to enable us, your humble servants, to continue in our American lifestyle. It is not in our nature, oh Lord, to sacrifice and take the unholy bus or the blasphemous subway. Oh Lord, please do not allow us to sink into the sacrilege of a shorter commute and deliver us from the temptation to purchase the pagan, fuel-efficient Prius. Let Your Will be done on Earth as it is in the Pearly-Gated Community in Heaven. Amen.

We do not absolve ourselves of guilt by praying in such a manner. Nor do we remove the urgency of action by petitioning God. Benjamin Franklin would have been ashamed to hear of people who pray for God to intervene in their unsustainable lifestyle without making changes to help themselves.

The fact of the matter is, that whether fossil fuels were put here by God or whether they are purely the product of natural processes, they are finite. We have chosen to use them in a manner which will exhaust them before the end of the century if we continue to use them as we do today.
If you believe that God intervenes in the world, perhaps these gas prices are His way of encouraging us to be better caretakers. Imagine what it must look like to the Creator. He gave us a pristine planet, a bountiful garden; and while He watches from the sideline, we are using all of the resources up, polluting the air and water, and continuing to live in a manner which creates massive economic and social inequity across the globe. (If you don't believe in a corporeal God, just imagine yourself as the observer.)

Prayer is a call for action. The actual etymology of the word "Amen" means 'so be it.' It means asking God for guidance before setting out on a task. It does not mean asking God to do it for you. I think Ralph Waldo Emerson hits the nail on the head when he says that

Prayer that craves a particular commodity, anything less than all good, is vicious. Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view. It is the soliloquy of a beholding and jubilant soul. But prayer as a means to effect a private end is meaningless and theft. It supposes dualism and not unity in nature and consciousness. As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He will see in prayer all action.

As humans, we have an obligation to take care of this one Earth. This responsibility comes not from a deity, but from the fact that we all share a small, small world, after all. Or, to quote Martin Luther King, Jr., "We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." The people of this planet will sink or swim together, and right now, the West is in the best position to lead mankind into a sustainable future.

So, with these thoughts in mind, perhaps we should have pray-ins at gas stations. Perhaps we should say something like this:

Almighty God, to You the future is as plain as words on a page. Grant us the wisdom and strength to make the requisite changes in our lifestyles in order to glorify your Creation. It was not our intent to lay waste to Your garden, nor was it our intent to separate ourselves from Your less-fortunate children in our pursuit of happiness. Yet our addiction to cheap energy has had that affect. We now know that we cannot continue to live the same way we have been living, but the changes will not be easy. We ask for the courage to make sacrifices as your Son did for us. It was selfish of us to presume that our affluence was an excuse to escape from the byproducts of our industrialized society, of which this energy crisis is one. We ask you to provide for us a more selfless path so that we may be able to achieve a true Jubilee, a time when all your sons and daughters will break bread together in Your verdant garden. Amen

*Note: This prayer is meant to be non-denominational. I certainly do not presume to place one religion above another. There are many paths to God, including some that are not signed as such. If any religion/philosophy is glorified more than others in this post, it is Humanism, but without humanism (note, little 'h'), religion is meaningless. Breaking bread, in this instance, refers not to Holy Communion but rather to an international peace, when all may live together. The reference to the Jubilee is Biblical, but it represents, in this case, the equality of all people, as prefaced in America's Declaration of Independence.

It's Economics, Stupid

On April 15, Senator John McCain called for a suspension of the federal gas tax this summer. Senator Hillary Clinton followed recently on Larry King by suggesting that the idea should be studied. In her message, Clinton said that we need to investigate the price highs that Americans have been seeing at the pump.

This comes in the face of record oil prices. Today's close had crude oil at $119.37 on the NYMEX. For a run down of recent factors, MSNBC has an excellent analysis. Still, I think that oil prices represent something more than a periodic disruptions in supply. Prices have been rising consistently for several years, a factor I attribute to global tensions--at least at the beginning. Now, however, with OPEC blaming the falling dollar on prices and claiming that there is no demand for additional oil (even when many of the chiefs of state in West are calling for it), I am less sure.

Right now, the United States makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use 25% of the world's oil. If everyone on the planet lived like the average American, we would need 5.33 Earths to support us all. Another way of saying that is to say that for every person who uses more than their share of the planet, someone else gets less share. At any rate, the main issue that we are facing right now is that most of the people of the world do want to live like the average American.

India and China comprise over a third of the world's population, and both are rapidly developing. As their countrymen and women start to drive more, as their distribution networks become more auto-intensive, and as their industry becomes more developed, their oil consumption will increase. China is already driving up the cost of construction projects here because of their insatiable demand for building products.

Today is Earth Day. Today we are meant to celebrate the planet that gives us life. Today we celebrate the only habitat of humankind. This year, with the green movement more popular than ever, we must consider the policy implications of a political folly like the one proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain.

All three of America's major presidential candidates have called for environmental protection. Climate scientists tell us that we must reduce greenhouse emissions immediately if we are to avert serious climate damage. Furthermore, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will mean relying less on foreign sources for our energy needs.

A suspension of the gas tax is one of the worst policy decisions that can be made for America, for the simple reason of economics. Even for those people who are totally reliant on automobiles, a reduction in the gas tax will make you worse off.

Very few people argue that Earth's oil resources are infinite. The general consensus is that there is a finite amount of oil inside Earth's nougat center. While it is true that we don't know exactly how much oil is left on the planet, it will take millions of years of natural processes to even begin to replenish what we've used since oil was first successfully drilled at Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. Therefore, I think it's safe to gloss over the intricacies of geology and just say flat out, they're not making any more of the stuff.

This will come as a shock to many, but there will be a time at which point the last drop of extractable oil will be drawn from the Earth. Therefore, every time you fill up your gas tank, you are bringing us closer to that point. Every time you decide to drive somewhere you could have walked, ridden the bus, or stayed at home, you take oil from your children (or an older version of you). Similarly, every time someone else makes a decision not to drive, they extend that moment.

Mr. McCain's idea to give Americans at least one more tryst with cheap oil is a wasteful bit of public policy which will only make the choices harder for the citizens of Planet Earth on that day (and hasten it) when oil doesn't gush out of the Arabian desert. Inflation (some say stagflation) is hurting the American economy because we transport almost everything on the tide of oil. Even I can feel the pinch, and I don't drive. But every time I walk to the grocery store, I get sticker shock.

Let's ask ourselves which is more important: getting food to grocery stores or getting to the beach (by car) this summer? Fire engines with full gas tanks or 45 mile one-way commutes on Mr. Eisenhower's freeway network? Fuel for the military or free parking at the Sprawl-Mart?

If every person in the world cut their oil consumption by half immediately, we would double the amount of time before the end of oil. Perhaps a cut by half, especially immediately, is too much to ask, but the converse is also true. If every person in the world doubled his or her consumption of oil overnight, we would halve the time to impact.

And that is precisely what cutting the gas tax would do. It might not double the amount that Americans drive, but it would increase the consumption of oil. Families that might have decided to spend the weekend at a local state park might decide to drive to Florida after all (unless they live in Florida, then they'd probably drive to California). Instead of being a responsible Senator, and suggesting that Americans use alternative methods of vacationing (such as taking Amtrak), he has proven that pandering is on his agenda.

If Senators McCain and Clinton truly feel that the United States can do without the $1 billion in transportation improvements around the country, perhaps they could find a way to keep the gas tax and spend that money on social services or buying carbon credits.

Just like free parking and free freeways has led to an overuse of those venues, cheaper gasoline will encourage drivers who could use other modes to drive. Transit agencies around the country have seen huge ridership gains since gas prices started escalating. Whether you take the subway or not, it's good for you. Every person who doesn't use gallon of gas for their commute leaves a gallon of gas for you or for the trucker delivering your supermarket's milk.

I never liked economics courses, but I did learn a few things in them. If supply is constant and demand increases, price goes up. By keeping gas prices high, we encourage those who can to switch to transit or reduce their car trips, which makes gas marginally cheaper for those who live too far from transit or who do have to drive.

In the long run, making Americans pay for the external costs of their oil addiction will reshape society by making transit accessible to more people and creating more walkable communities. If these oil prices are just a periodic upswing, this will better prepare us for the next shock. If this is the actual peak of world oil, which some are saying already, these prices will only go up.

If our presidential candidates are serious about stabilizing the economy, they will support an increase in the gas tax. This will help reduce our dependence on oil, extend the endpoint of the oil era, and ensure that we won't have any silent springs in the near future.

Candidates would also be wise to stop blaming the oil companies. Even they are starting to see the light and diversify. After all, why else would Beyond Petroleum (better known as BP) go beyond petroleum? The lesson learned by OPEC during the disco era is one not easily forgotten in the oil industry. Even in the car-dominant United States, oil consumption didn't recover for years after the 1979 crisis. It took OPEC six years to recover from the drop in demand, and I assure you, they are not eager to repeat that crash course in economics. If our economy is reliant on oil, then their economy is reliant on our reliance on oil.

As proof-positive of the trend to reduce oil consumption, the Post had an article just yesterday on how America's railroads are having a resurgence in popularity. Trains are four times more efficient as tractor-trailers. This is good for our economy and it's good for the consumer--in the longer run. In the near-term, we will face some painful decisions, however. During this time, which is hard for all of us, we need to learn to pull our fair share. And we need policymakers who will leverage the economy to wean of us of our oil fix and at the same time create green jobs.

We only have this one Earth. Let's celebrate her. And remember that every day should be Earth Day.

Happy Earth Day America!

Primarily Obama

Well, I voted today in Maryland's Democratic primary. I thought originally, that since our vote came after Super Tuesday, that it wouldn't matter much, but it seems that I was wrong. At the time of this writing, CNN projects that Senators Clinton and Obama are separated by only 5 delegates. Mr. Obama can be congratulated on winning Virgina with more than 60 percent of the vote.

There is, however, still a long campaign season before the convention in Denver. I hope that Democrats can be united at the end of primary season. I can't afford 4 more years of a Republican administration, and I know many others feel that way.

I was pleased to note that voting still inspires a strong civic spirit in myself. On my way to my polling place this morning, I passed a sculpture I had never noticed before (because I'd never walked down this particular block). It seems designed to reflect the essence of America, and I think it does a good job. I can't get over how ironic it was, however, that I discovered it on election day.

Anyway, Maryland's polls will be staying open an additional 90 minutes tonight because of the inclement weather in the area. So I will be waiting to hear results at 9:30. I think the decision was a good one, too. It took me an hour to take the bus less than a mile from my classroom to the Metro this evening. If I had decided to wait until after class to vote, I might not have made it.

Anyway, here's a toast to democracy. If your opportunity hasn't passed, go vote.

Dulles De-Railed?

Will this....

...ever get here?

After Friday's Washington Post headline, that's a question many Washingtonians are asking themselves. The Federal Transit Administration's decision to not grant an expected $900 million to the Silver Line has caused quite a stir here in the seat of government.

Since the 1960s, before even the current Metro system was open to passengers, regional leaders have been calling for a rail connection to the area's largest airport. Of the three Airports in the Washington area, the premier gateway, Dulles, is the only one without train service to Downtown (and BWI also has service to Baltimore). The Silver Line would include 23 new miles of heavy rail, with trains operating from Ryan Road (Rt 772) in Loudoun County to Stadium-Armory station along the Orange and Blue Lines in Washington. Along the way, it would serve one of the region's largest job centers while connecting international visitors to downtown on a one-seat ride.

Many people I spoke with on Friday responded with surprise and outrage that a project being planned for four decades was suddenly in such a precarious position. According to the Post, it wasn't just everyday Metro riders that were upset either, Friday's lead article described Virginia Senator Warner as "livid."

So why all the hubbub? According to columnist Marc Fisher, the decision by the FTA to put federal funding at risk for Phase I of the Metro extension to Dulles Airport is not completely out of the blue. Still, the feds and Virginia have already allocated $104 million to the project, and utility relocation for the project has already started in Fairfax County.

It seems that there has been some contradiction regarding conversations between FTA and Virginia leaders. The Post is reporting that Virginia's cost estimates don't match the FTA's and that only a few days before the bell tolled for the Silver Line, FTA sent a report to Congress rating the Dulles Metro line as meeting criteria for funding. The Post articles indicate that Virginia's leaders feel like FTA has been leading them on with regards to the project's hopes. Many of the concerns raised last Thursday have already been addressed, including the slashing of costs late last year to meet FTA cost guidelines. If FTA is so concerned with the project, they should have sent up smoke signals earlier.

Due to this pressure, US Secretary of Transportation, Mary Peters, has agreed to grant a "cooling off period" before making a final decision. It seems very unlikely, however, that the FTA is going to change their mind and that leaves Northern Virginia's citizens and leaders in a quandary.

As reported before (here and here) on Track Twenty-Nine, the Silver Line was about far more than getting people from home to work (an estimated 60,000 commuters daily), it was to be about redefining Northern Virginia in a way which would change the very foundation of the home to work trip. Of course, it would take more than a Metro line to transform Tysons into Bethesda, but it isn't too far-fetched to imagine a transformation on the scale of Silver Spring's in gridlocked Fairfax County.

Without the $900 million in federal dollars, the $2.5 billion project will probably not move forward, at least not without major changes. Already talk is surfacing of ways to make up the gap. Governor Kaine has already expressed his disinterest in further raising tolls on the Dulles Toll Road to pay for the project. Some have suggested a private takeover of the project, but public-private partnerships still face much criticism, at least outside of the White House.

Regardless of the fate of the Silver Line, however, this situation is indicative of a larger problem facing America's urban areas. Transportation dollars are stretched thinner and thinner each additional year that passes, and the costs associated with the aging infrastructure from the Interstate Highway era are piling up. In an age where cheap oil seems to be in retreat, it does not seem prudent to continue to spend $40 on roads for every $1 on transit, yet that is where our national transportation policy is aimed.

Furthermore, the implications of the Dulles Metro rejection should be looked at in a broader context. For some time now, many cities have shied away from even considering heavy rail because FTA is unlikely to fund it. A few cities that already have systems are considering extensions, but what doubt the Dulles decision will cast is yet to be seen. For more information on this, check out the Overhead Wire's articles here and here.

In his State of the Union speech Monday night, Mr. Bush encouraged Congress to pass a stimulus package in the face of this recession. The Dulles Metro project is the same kind of stimulus for Northern Virginia because it challenges some of the forces that put us into this economic situation. Alternative forms of transportation would allow Americans to cut back on fuel spending, and therefore put money back in wallets across the nation.

It's ironic how spendthrift this administration is when it comes to improving our urban areas, education programs, and the health care system, especially in the face of Mr. Bush's own pet project, Iraq. Everyday, America spends an estimated $720 million on the Iraq War--almost enough to cover FTA's bill for Dulles. According to CommonDreams.org, one day's worth of War dollars would buy 6,500 homes, or give health care to 423,529 children, or even convert 1.27 million homes to run on renewable energy--talk about a stimulus package!

It's time that Metro opened its doors at Dulles and it's time that America's transportation policies started to lean in a more sustainable direction. America can't afford to miss the train when it comes to the greening of our cities. It's time for the Bush Administration to get on board with Dulles Rail.

Agree? Let the people in charge know at http://www.dullescorridorrail.com/.

The City of Brotherly Love*

*Some restrictions apply

Tensions have been rising for some time in Philadelphia between the City government and the Cradle of Liberty Council. Since 1928, the Boy Scouts of America-Cradle of Liberty Council has leased their Beaux-Arts headquarters from the City for $1 a year. Their rent will be increasing 200,000% next year, says the city council, unless they remove their ban on gays.

The Washington Post is reporting that Philadelphia has given CoL Council until December 3 to allow gays or it will have to pay up. This case is stirring up the embers of the drama which ensued in 2000 when the US Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts of America to continue its ban on gays.

I had been actively involved in Scouting for 14 years when I came out. At the time, I considered leaving Scouting the hardest moment of my life. I felt that it was harder even than coming out to my parents. Looking back, I still can't find a time in my life when I was in more emotional turmoil. I had grown up with Scouting, I had given my time to Scouting, I had friends in Scouting. Leaving America's largest youth movement meant being estranged from my second family.

Now, almost two years after my departure, I still long for the day when that estrangement will end. I do not intend a pun when I say that my Scouting uniforms still hang pressed in my closet. Yet the sting has gone. I no longer feel a hole in my chest when I think back on the organization which I love. I have filled my time with other activities, but I can't help wondering which fruits would have been produced from a further Scouting relationship.

Perhaps the greatest irony in my mind is that I don't know that I would have had the strength to come out had it not been for the skills I learned through Scouting. The National Council claims that homosexuals are banned from Scouting because being gay is "inconsistent with the obligations of the Scout Oath and Law." The Boy Scouts of America see their organization as one which teaches a rigid set of values, and they find that these values allow them to exclude certain members of society.

Robert Kennedy, I think, espoused the values of Scouting when he said that "Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence." Scouts are indeed disciples of a moral code which is rarely easy to uphold, but that is Scouting's message. Barry Goldwater tells us that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." This is also a Scouting principle. No Scout should be taught to stand by during times of injustice. We were taught by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Members of the Boy Scouts of America have an obligation to stand up in the name of justice. It is time that the Scouting organization rejoined its members in seeking to uphold the tenets of the Scout Oath and Law; in seeking to promote the high ideals of America.

It is a shame that the Cradle of Liberty Council is facing expulsion from its headquarters building, but there is also a sense of irony there. Perhaps the Cradle of Liberty Council will serve as the cradle for yet more liberty. Until that time, I will continue to hold the Scout Oath and Law in my heart silently awaiting my invitation to rejoin the brotherhood of Scouting.

A Rainy Night In Georgia

Georgia is in the midst of one of the worst droughts on record. In late October, when I changed planes in Atlanta, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was reporting that Atlanta had 80 days of water left. This problem was foreseeable, yet no action was taken by state or local leaders. This city has had one of the fastest metropolitan growth rates in the country basically since air conditioning was invented. Projections call for almost 3 million people to move to the metropolitan area by 2030, an increase in population of 75%. If Atlanta doesn't have enough water now, though, how can it expect to survive once a population surge the size of Seattle moves in?

Well, the good news now is that Georgia's two term Governor, Sonny Purdue, has the answer.

Pray.

Wow. I'm surprised that no other politician has thought of that one. Too much congestion? Pray about it. Poll numbers too low? Pray about that too. Jackets going into the annual Georgia-Georgia Tech rivalry with a high ranking? Sure, might as well ask the Almighty to intervene in Football. At least divine intervention in sports doesn't violate the laws of nature that messing with the weather would.

From today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

After the prayers, the rain

By SAEED AHMED
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/14/07

When his hour-long prayer vigil for rain ended with the sun shining through Tuesday, Gov. Sonny Perdue made a bold proclamation.

"God can make it rain tomorrow," he said.

Just like Perdue — and the National Weather Service — said, it was a rainy night in Georgia on Wednesday.

The rain was triggered by a cold front coming through, and it was expected to last until the early hours of Thursday morning.

Did Purdue's pleas to the almighty make a difference? Probably just in his poll numbers. A more appropriate question would inquire whether Georgians are finally tired of Pandering Purdue. It's easy for the Governor to hold a 'successful' prayer vigil. He just looks at the 10 day forecast, calls a prayer vigil, and then celebrates a 20% chance of rain the next day.

Who lost weight as Governor?
Who set back transit in Georgia by at least 5 years?
Who created a pointless second ban on gay marriage?
Who did nothing about the water shortage except pray for rain?

Sonny did.

If Mr. Purdue is so keen on holding an office where he gets to pray about things whose processes are already set, maybe he should run for Deacon. Because it won't help in getting things done (only getting elected), because praying that the junior Senator from Indiana will co-sponsor your bill won't really change his mind.